Is it time for Parks Board meetings to be Video taped at Carnegie?

by

Besides the fact that the council ramrodded every agenda item through without much discussion at last night’s city council meeting (Kermit was absent and attending a conference – which was also ironic that they scheduled an executive session in his absence).

They also approved the transit board recommendations. Two things were missing from that discussion; NO transfers and NO free ridership under a certain age. They also didn’t address the poorly managed dispatch of Paratransit which is probably very costly to the system, but oh well, when councilor Staggers is out of town, questions don’t get asked and we rumberstamp much faster.

Speaking of the rubber stamp, councilors Karsky and Erpenbach seemed to have lost theirs for a moment last night when the council proposed an amendment to overstep the Parks Board. It’s really a simple argument, the city council is an elected board and should always supersede any appointed board, like the Parks Board.

But councilor Erpenbach (a former Parks Board member) felt that the council should not be allowed to overstep their recommendations. Once again, Michelle couldn’t be more wrong. Remember, they are appointed by the Mayor, and they aren’t your average Joe Six-Pack sitting at Van Eps Park drinking a cold one on a Wednesday morning. One of the members for example is the wife of mega-super-TIF-sucking developer Craig Lloyd.

So I ask Michelle, if this board is so precious and powerful, why aren’t the decisions they are making being recorded on video at Carnegie? I suggest the next resolution the city council proposes is that ALL appointed board meetings be recorded at Carnegie, including Ethics board and city council working sessions. If they are so important, they can show their importance by being transparent.

Also, you can’t miss public input from last night, the mayor was ‘forgiven’ for being a jerk by a citizen.

The final financial reports are in from the city election

by

No big surprises. It looks like Walmart threw in only an additional $33,000 in the last week before the election. Some interesting notes to point out in the candidate races were that Kiley received only ONE individual contributions right before the election, $250 from Cindy Huether. Cindy  also gave $250 to Tex Golfing & Michelle Erpenbach. How convenient that she gave this late in the game, knowing her name wouldn’t appear on a financial report until after the election. I guess she learned well from her sneaky husband.

Mayor Huether also had some interesting contributors. From PAC’s he got $1500 from two separate Unions, Citigroup gave $500, John Morrell’s (Smithfield) gave $1000, and one of the more interesting of his PAC contributors was HDR Engineering, which gave $500. HDR does a boatload of consulting for the city planning office. A very strange donation to Christine Erickson was from Kyle Schoenfish (used to be a Democrat, and is the son of Mayor Huether’s first cousin) who gave $125. Still trying to figure that one out.

Tell us how you really feel Councilor Erpenbach

by

029033524222lg

Councilor Erpenbach recently had this reply to a citizen’s email asking about the polling evidence that people want the indoor pool at Spellerberg;

Thanks, —–. I appreciate your input but I seriously disagree with your analysis.            

Three separate polls (including the April 8 election) indicate people in Sioux Falls overwhelmingly support an indoor aquatics facility at the Spellerberg location. Those votes include amazing numbers from all of the precincts that touch Spellerberg Park. Your neighbors want this.            

And I disagree that no other locations were studied. Many sites were studied extensively. Frankly, if we need to expand our indoor aquatics program, future leaders won’t be adding to Spellerberg, they will be building another site.            

The people have spoken. Let’s please move on.

More indoor pools?! We can’t even afford the one, and she is planning on building more?! The indoor pool will only be used to capacity during swim meets and on the weekends.

So who is attributed to this mysterious ‘exit poll’ about an indoor pool?

by

Remember the April vote was for a NEW outdoor pool at Spellerberg.  The only poll we know about at this point are the city voters voting against replacing the pool with another outdoor pool. CS365 and Nielson did polls BEFORE the vote, but I have no clue who did an exit poll.

In the informational meeting video (FF: 7:20) Michelle actually states “They have been privy to a poll”.  She says they have a public poll but we have never heard about it before this informational. Was this a top secret poll? Who conducted it? CS365? Another private entity? Or the city?

Informational Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Council Member Michelle Erpenbach responded that polling done illustrated 70% of the voters (who voted against an outdoor pool at Spellerberg Park) assumed they were voting for an indoor pool at this same location.  She recommended listening to the citizens that support this location.  Erpenbach noted that the indoor pool project has been a project for this City Council. She recommended allowing the two outgoing Council Members the right to vote on this item.

In a document handed out at the informational meeting (Spellerberg Scan 042814) there were no attributions as to who conducted the exit poll, not even a mention of this mysterious exit poll, just previous polling and election results. Is councilor Erpenbach just making up this mysterious exit poll? And even if she isn’t, why did voters ‘think’ they were voting on an indoor pool at Spellerberg when it was not on the ballot? And why is councilor Erpenbach bragging about how the city & CS365 used taxpayer and private money to mislead voters?

My bigger concern is that documents are being handed out at public meetings that are claiming a 70% approval of an indoor pool at Spellerberg, and have no attributions as to ‘who’ conducted the poll. Could care less if it was true or not, my bigger question is whether it was actually conducted, or construed and concocted with polling previous to the election?

Looks like something is being pulled from someone’s butt.